Gardenology.org - Plant Encyclopedia and Gardening Wiki - User contributions [en]

Extension Teaching In Horticulture

2009-10-01T12:56:18Z

Silparaja: Created page with '__NOTOC__{{Plantbox | latin_name = ''LATINNAME''  | common_names = <!--- if multiple, list all, if none, leave blank -…'

Experiment stations

2009-10-01T12:53:45Z

__NOTOC__{{Plantbox
| latin_name = ''LATINNAME'' 
| common_names = 
| growth_habit = ? 
| high = ? 
| wide = 
| origin = ? 
| poisonous = 
| lifespan = 
| exposure = ? 
| water = ? 
| features = 
| hardiness = 
| bloom = 
| usda_zones = ? 
| sunset_zones = 
| color = IndianRed
| image = Upload.png 
| image_width = 240px 
| image_caption = 
| familia = 
| genus =
| species =
| subspecies = 
| cultivar = 
}}
{{Inc|

Experiment stations. Every state of the Union, every island dependency of the United States, and every province of the Dominion of Canada has one experiment station for agriculture supported by public funds. A very few of the states have two stations, one being the regular federal agency in the state and the other being usually an institution established and maintained directly by the state and representing the movement that began before the passage of the federal experiment station act.

By the middle of the last century, the discussion for institutions or agencies to make experiments in agriculture was well under way. It was not till 1875, however, that any legislative body made an appropriation for the establishing of such an institution. This was in Connecticut. Other stations followed in several states, some of them under direct legislative enactment and others being organizations within colleges or college departments of agriculture. These movements were marked in North Carolina, New York, New Jersey, Ohio, Massachusetts, and other states. The movement in the United States for a national system of experiment stations took form in a bill for the purpose introduced into Congress in 1882 by Hon. C. C. Carpenter of Iowa. The bill finally to become a law was introduced in the House of Representatives by Hon. William H. Hatch of Missouri; this became law March 2, 1887, by the signature of President Cleveland. It appropriates $15,000 to each state for the purpose of establishing an agricultural experiment station, to be located at the land-grant college unless the state shall determine otherwise.

A second act, supplementing the Hatch Act, was approved March 16, 1906, by President Roosevelt, it having been introduced and carried to passage by Hon. Henry C. Adams, of Wisconsin. This appropriates $15,000 to each state "for the more complete endowment and maintenance" of the stations, with the understanding and requirement that it shall support fundamental researches. About $1,500,000 is therefore expended annually by the federal government for the maintenance of experiment stations in the forty-eight states, aside from similar grants for stations in Porto Rico and Hawaii, expenditures in the Philippines through the War Department, and in Alaska and Guam directly through the United States Department of Agriculture; and there is also a large and important expenditure in the Department of Agriculture itself, both for supervision and for investigation. The states also contribute heavily to the experiment station work. The total revenue in the United States for the year ended June 30, 1912 was $4,068,240.09.

By law, reports are to be issued at least quarterly by the different experiment stations. These institutions are now issuing numerous bulletins, circulars and reports on an astonishing range of subjects and of the greatest importance to the people. The publications of the United States Department of Agriculture are very extensive and of the highest technical and general value.

In Canada, the experiment station movement was practically parallel with that in the United States. The Act for a dominion system was passed in 1886. One central station, or "central experimental farm," was established at Ottawa, and the stations in the provinces are branches of it and under the administration of its director. The grant of Parliament for the year 1913-1914 for the maintenance of the system of experimental farms was $900,000.

In both the United States and Canada, horticulture is one of the important subjects of experiment and research. Usually this work is in charge of a separate officer, commonly known as a "horticulturist;" and the number of associates and helpers may be several or many. The extent of horticultural research is now large and it is rapidly increasing. Persons desiring to be in touch with this work should apply to the experiment station in the state or province or to the national department; and a list of these institutions is given below. For further history and discussion of Experiment Stations in the two countries, see pp. 422-430, Vol. IV, Cyclo. Amer. Agric.

In the United States the address of the experiment station and of the college of agriculture is usually the same post-office. In New York, there is a state station at Geneva as well as the federal station and college at Ithaca; in Ohio, the experiment station is at Wooster, and the college is part of the State University at Columbus; in Georgia, the station is at Experiment and the college at Athens, in the University; in Connecticut, the federal station is at New Haven, and the college at Storrs; in other states the post-offices of the two are the same.

Canada.
The Dominion or headquarters institution is the Central Experimental Farm, Ottawa, Ontario. Alberta.
Experimental Station, Lacombe.
Experimental Station, Lethbridge. British Columbia.
Experimental Farm, Agassiz.
Experiment Stations, at Invermere, and at Sidney on Vancouver Island.
Manitoba.
Experimental Farm, Brandon.
New Brunswick.
Experimental Station, Fredericton.
Nova Scotia.
Experimental Farms, Nappan, Kent ville.
Ontario.
Central Experimental Farm, Ottawa.
Prince Edward Island.
Experimental Station, Charlottetown.
Quebec.
Experimental Stations. Cap Rouge, Ste. Anne de la Pocatiere, Lennoxville.
Saskatchewan.
Experimental Farm, Indian Head.
Experimental Stations, Rosthern and Scott.
United States.
United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, D. C.
Alabama.
Agricultural Experiment Station of the Alabama
Polytechnic Institute, Auburn.
Canebrake Agricultural Experiment Station, Union- town.
Tuskegee Agricultural Experiment Station, Tuskegee Institute.
Alaska.
Alaska Agricultural Experiment Stations, Sitka, Kodiak, Rampart, and Fairbanks.
Arizona.
Agricultural Experiment Station of the University of Arizona, Tucson.
Arkansas.
Arkansas Agricultural Experiment Station, Fayetteville.
California.
Agricultural Experiment Station of the University of California, Berkeley.
Colorado.
Agricultural Experiment Station, Fort Collins.
Connecticut.
The Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station, New Haven.
Storrs Agricultural Experiment Station, Storrs.
Delaware.
The Delaware College Agricultural Experiment Station, Newark.
Florida.
Agricultural Experiment Station of Florida, Gainesville.
Georgia.
Georgia Experiment Station, Experiment.
Guam.
Guam Agricultural Experiment Station, Island of Guam (address Island of Guam, via San Francisco).
Hawaii.
Hawaii Agricultural Experiment Station, Honolulu. Hawaii Sugar Planters' Experiment Station, Honolulu.
Idaho.
Agricultural Experiment Station of the University of Idaho, Moscow.
Illinois.
Agricultural Experiment Station of the University of Illinois, Urbana.
Indiana.
Agricultural Experiment Station of Indiana, La Fayette.
Iowa.
Iowa Agricultural Experiment Station, Ames.
Kansas.
Kansas Agricultural Experiment Station, Manhattan.
Kentucky.
Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station, Lexington.
Louisiana.
State Experiment Station, Baton Rouge.
North Louisiana Experiment Station, Calhoun.
Rice Experiment Station, Crowley.
Sugar Experiment Station, Audubon Park, New Orleans.
Maine.
Maine Agricultural Experiment Station, Orono.
Maryland.
Maryland Agricultural Experiment Station, College Park.
Massachusetts.
Massachusetts Agricultural Experiment Station, Amherst.
Michigan.
Experiment Station of Michigan Agricultural College, East Lansing.
Minnesota.
Agricultural Experiment Station of the University of Minnesota, University Farm, St. Paul.
Mississippi.
Mississippi Agricultural Experiment Station, Agricultural College.
McNeill Branch Experiment Station, McNeill.
Delta Branch Experiment Station, Stoneville.
Holly Springs Branch Experiment Station, Holly Springs.
Missouri.
Missouri Agricultural College Experiment Station, Columbia.
Missouri State Fruit Experiment Station, Mountain Grove.
Montana.
Montana Agricultural Experiment Station, Bozeman.
Nebraska.
Agricultural Experiment Station of Nebraska, Lincoln.
Nevada.
Nevada Agricultural Experiment Station, Reno.
New Hampshire.
New Hampshire College Agricultural Experiment Station, Durham.
New Jersey.
New Jersey Agricultural College Experiment Station, New Brunswick.
New Jersey State Agricultural Experiment Station, New Brunswick.
New Mexico.
Agricultural Experiment Station of New Mexico, State College.
New York.
New York Agricultural Experiment Station, Geneva.
Cornell University Agricultural Experiment Station, Ithaca.
North Carolina.
North Carolina Agricultural Experiment Station, West Raleigh.
Agricultural Experiment Station of the North Carolina State Department of Agriculture, Raleigh.
North Dakota.
North Dakota Agricultural Experiment Station, Agricultural College.
Ohio.
Ohio Agricultural Experiment Station, Wooster.
Oklahoma.
Oklahoma Agricultural Experiment Station, Still- water.
Oregon.
Oregon Experiment Station, Corvallis.
Pennsylvania.
The Pennsylvania State College Agricultural Experiment Station, State College.
Philippine Islands.
Laznao Experiment Station, Lamao, Bataan.
Porto Rico.
Porto Rico Agricultural Experiment Station, Mayaguez.
Porto Rico Sugar Producers' Experiment Station, Rio Piedras.
Rhode Island.
Agricultural Experiment Station of the Rhode Island State College, Kingston.
South Carolina.
South Carolina Agricultural Experiment Station, Clemson College.
South Dakota.
South Dakota Agricultural Experiment Station, Brookings.
Tennessee.
Tennessee Agricultural Experiment Station, Knoxville.
Texas.
Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, College Station.
Utah.
Agricultural Experiment Station, Logan.
Vermont.
Vermont Agricultural Experiment Station, Burlington.
Virginia.
Virginia Agricultural Experiment Station, Blacks- burg.
Virginia Truck Experiment Station, Norfolk.
Washington.
Washington Agricultural Experiment Station, Pullman.
West Virginia.
West Virginia Agricultural Experiment Station, Morgan town.
Wisconsin.
Agricultural Experiment Station of the University of Wisconsin, Madison.
Wyoming.
Wyoming Agricultural Experiment Station, Laramie.

Research in horticulture. (U. P. Hedrick.)

For the purposes of this discussion we need not concern ourselves with formal definitions of horticulture nor discuss its several divisions. (For definitions, see Horticulture.) It is more to the point to indicate the nature of the research problems to be solved in the several loosely correlated industries of which horticulture is composed. Experimenters in horticulture may investigate the phenomena of science, the mechanical methods of an art, and latterly they have come to have much to do with business affairs. What should be the relative status of science, art and business in research work in this branch of agriculture?

Horticulture is a "no man's land" in science. Botanists, chemists, entomologists, bacteriologists and geneticists, join in solving its problems. First one science and then another lets in its light and illuminates an obscure nook. Thus, systematic botany, in the classification of orchard and garden plants, began the construction of rational horticulture; then came chemistry to furnish knowledge of soils and fertilizers; botany and entomology brought aid in combating innumerable pests. When, however, a discovery is made in any science men are drawn to it as moths to a light, and botany and entomology, which have recently been most prominent, are now giving way in horticulture to genetics and the sciences having to do with the soil, discovery and activity being greatest in these fields. Thus, there is no science of horticulture, but there is science in horticulture. The science field, also, is as open to horticulturists as to experimenters in the sciences that form the foundation of horticulture.

The application of science is art. The botanist and entomologist discover the life-history of insects and fungi; the control of the pests, by means of spraying or otherwise, is an art. The discovery of the laws that govern soil-moisture and soil-heat is a field for the scientist; the art of tillage is or should be founded on the science of soil physics. A widely different phase of physics cornea into action when the mechanical engineer is asked to help solve the problems of cooling, storing and transporting horticultural products. The manipulation of plants in propagating, grafting and training is an art based on plant physiology. Thus, research work in horticulture partakes of the "practical;" indeed, applicability usually must be a paramount consideration in investigations in this field. Much that is called "pure science" is helpful in horticulture, but the horticulturist is chiefly concerned with applied science.

So, also, there are inter-relations between business, science and art in horticulture. A prevalent phase of experimentation is the determination of the cost of the unit—the barrel of apples, for example—of agricultural products; other business experiments seek to determine the outgo and the income of the orchard and garden; still others consider the relative profits of two crops in certain soils or other environmental conditions. These problems are largely studies of business methods and are not true research subjects, but one can conceive of scientific investigations in the business affairs of horticulture and certainly science and business come into close touch in this industry.

The distinctions that have been made are not clearly defined in the activities of horticulturists. Too often men supposed to be engaged in research work in horticultural science are busy with the art—very often not in discovery or invention in art but simply with the details of well-established art. Much that is put out as the result of research work is a description or a discussion of the technic of horticulture. A study of business methods, pure and simple, is frequently offered as the results of research. These isolated observations on the art and business of horticulture, having no relation to either pure or applied science, ephemeral and of but limited application, bear but poorly the brand of investigation. Data in the art and business of horticulture, to be worth the while of the true research worker, must be a part of the coordinated and classified knowledge of horticulture, must be of more or less universal application, and must deal more or less directly with scientific principles. Investigating is not teaching, nor demonstrating, nor observing, nor describing, nor proving, unless primarily behind any of these is the design to discover laws.

On the other hand, much that passes as scientific investigation turns out to be theory made attractive by the rouge of speculation; or it is controversy for controversy s sake; not infrequently the offering of science is an old garment made over in a new style; or it is a small truth much adorned; sometimes the scientific offering but heralds a discovery which never appears. Pseudo-research is by no means confined to the practical phases of horticulture.
The writer does not overlook the body of good work being turned out by the American experimenters in horticultural lines, but this is not the subject of the present discussion.

The training of research workers.

The diverse character of experimentation in horticulture as set forth indicates somewhat the training that investigators in this field should have. It follows from the importance attached to science in horticulture, that thorough training in the sciences is imperative, but the distinctions here made indicate just as clearly that a person trained in the sciences and not in the art and business of horticulture is sadly handicapped. We may put down as the first essential in the mental equipment of the research worker, a broad and severe scientific training. The second essential is, perfect familiarity with garden, orchard and greenhouse plants and methods of handling their products. It is not sufficient that the horticultural experimenter know but the industry in which he may specialize. Knowledge of what is done in the greenhouse, for example, is indispensable to the experimenter with fruits, offering him suggestions at every turn. Whatever knowledge a man may possess of the needs and care of plants in any field of agriculture will be helpful in a specialized field. Perhaps the ability to correlate science and art should be put down as a third essential.

But at present chief emphasis must be laid on the scientific training. The art of horticulture is sufficiently well taught in agricultural colleges, and the money- earning value of an education is in most institutions over-emphasized. The atmosphere of practicums and money-making which prevails in most of our colleges is not one in which investigators are born and bred. Instead, for the proper training of a horticulturist there should be an atmosphere of investigation for investigation's sake, of sound learning, of appreciation of science not only in its applications but as pure science and for its disciplinary value. It is desirable, almost imperative, that one training to become a horticulturist should take a post-graduate course in which special attention may be devoted to the sciences and the problems of horticulture.

Equipment for research.

Less need be said about the material equipment for horticultural research than the mental make-up of the worker. The nation and the states have been free in the expenditure of money for experimental work. Not a few horticultural departments in the experiment stations of the country are over-equipped with land, buildings and laboratories—the things that money can buy. Certain it is that the output from the institutions conducting research is not in proportion to the money spent or to the number of men on the staff. The fact that equipment and materials do not create, needs emphasis everywhere in horticultural experimentation. The custom of obtaining money to build up a department without specific work to be done is a vicious one from which there must in time be a reaction. Opportunity, equipment and problem should go together, and all these are valueless without a man with initiative, ideas, and training to use them. There are probably more over-equipped departments in horticulture than under-equipped ones. Large experimenting is sometimes small experimenting and small experimenting large experimenting.

In one particular, however, the horticultural departments of the country are sadly under-equipped. There are no comprehensive plantations of economic plants in the experiment stations of the United States. The amelioration of plants is the chief work in horticulture and it would seem that the establishment of economic gardens is imperative, since material to be used advantageously must be near at hand. At least one station in every distinct agricultural region in the country should have an economic garden where may be found the food plants of the world suitable for the region. This should be an agricultural garden, not a plant museum to show the curious and the ornamental; in it agriculture must be dominant, not recessive.

Organization for research.

Horticulture is composed of so many industries and involves so many sciences that its problems are too diverse and too complex to permit of many definite statements in regard to organization for research. But several generalities may be set down as essentials to a good organization: (1) There must be a man in command—a broadly trained man. (2) The position of the experimenter should be permanent, subject only to efficiency. (3) The time and thought of the investigator must not be taken up with other activities, as administration, teaching, extension work and the like. (4) The organization must be permanent, to give continuity, coherence and exhaustiveness to the work. (5) The organization should usually correspond with the subdivisions of horticulture rather than the sciences upon which it is founded. That is, there should be pomologists, gardeners and florists, rather than botanists, chemists and entomologists. (6) Money and effort should be concentrated upon a few comprehensive problems that can be exhaustively carried to sound conclusions. Too many experiments are but fragments of a larger problem; discovered to be such, they are often discarded after waste of time and money.

The third of the essentials just given needs amplification. The greatest deterrent to good work in experimentation is the association of research with teaching either in the classroom or from the institute platform. So much of the tune and energy of men having these dual-purpose positions is taken by the more present, and therefore more pressing, work of teaching that they are often investigators only in name. In every institution where teaching and investigating are combined, the demand is naturally strongest from students, and investigation suffers. There are, it is true, advantages in the combined position of teacher and investigator, but few indeed are the cases in which the disadvantages do not outweigh them and always the research work suffers.

There should be cooperation between the horticultural experimenters in the several states and the United States Department of Agriculture. A most pathetic spectacle in our agricultural institutions is that of isolated men attacking one and the same problem, duplicating results, often duplicating errors and in either case wasting public funds. So far as possible there should not be overlapping of experimental work, unless duplication is desirable to make more certain the results. In the latter case the work should be jointly planned and from time to time compared and adjusted to secure efficiency and economy. The Society for Horticultural Science is an excellent clearing-house in which the official horticultural experimenters in North America may interchange ideas and adjust their work.

Theories in horticulture are so general, facts so numerous, evidence of one kind or another so easily adduced, that the temptation is strong to state a theory, supply facts from the many already known, adorn the work with a dash of personally collected evidence and call the result an experiment. Such work lacks coherence and is incomplete. Few, indeed, are the horticultural investigators who make their work invincible by exhaustiveness. Again, the urgent call for results hits led to the study of problems admitting of hurried conclusions rather than those that are fundamental, and for this reason much work is unfinished and inconclusive. The superb exhaustiveness of Darwin's work, much of it horticultural experimentation, should furnish inspiration and method to investigators in this field of agriculture in particular. All call to mind that the "Origin of Species is but a short statement of the theory of evolution which is then shown to be an impregnable fact by a vast amount of evidence over which Darwin labored for twenty years, biding time until his views reached full maturity. There is every temptation to publish prematurely, but permanent work is that which is completely worked out. Besides, given time, investigation is easier, material coming of itself which, under speed, would have required travail of mind to bring forth.

The immediate field.

In conclusion it may be well to state, as a record of the times, and for possible suggestive value, some of the present problems of horticulture.

Experimentation is needed in the oldest of horticultural operations—pruning. It must be approached through physiological botany. We know next to nothing about the feeding of plants and the influences of the food elements on plant-products—current methods of fertilizing are largely arbitrary. Many questions having to 0:0 with sex are before us. There is need of more precise knowledge about bud-formation and the setting and dropping of fruits. There is yet much to be done in the classification and description of horticultural plants. More than elsewhere in agriculture, horticultural plants are inter-planted as in catch-crops, cover-crops and in crop-rotation; the inter-relationships of plants and the effects of crop residues, therefore, must be studied. Greater knowledge of the associations of plants would throw new light on the relations of climates and soils to plant-growing— plant ecology. We have not yet reached the limit of improvement in any cultivated species and plant- breeding must be given attention. The relationships of parasites and hosts involving the whole matter of predisposition, resistance and immunity offer a series of problems. The good and bad effects of sprays, quite aside from their insecticidal or fungicidal functions, are worthy of study. Much has been written but very little is really known about the reciprocal influences of stock and graft. The whole matter of stocks needs experimental attention, fruit-growers in particular having little to guide them in the choice of stocks for the several fruits. We know that cultivated plants vary greatly: are any of the variations heritable or do they appear and disappear with the individual? A study of the last problem would bring one to a much- needed investigation of mutations. Acclimatization deserves consideration. There yet remain many native plants worthy of domestication. Forcing of plants brings up many problems; as, the influence of heated soils and atmospheres, soil sterilization, artificial lights in place of sunlight, the use of electricity in forcing growth and the physiological disturbances of the plant brought about by the changed environment. Lastly, those who ship and store horticultural products are calling for experimental aid to solve their many problems.

{{SCH}}
}}

==Cultivation==
{{edit-cult}}

===Propagation===
{{edit-prop}}

===Pests and diseases===
{{edit-pests}}

==Species==


==Gallery==
{{photo-sources}}

<gallery>
Image:Upload.png| photo 1
Image:Upload.png| photo 2
Image:Upload.png| photo 3
</gallery>

==References==
*[[Standard Cyclopedia of Horticulture]], by L. H. Bailey, MacMillan Co., 1963




==External links==
*{{wplink}}

{{stub}}
[[Category:Categorize]]

Exostemma

2009-10-01T12:47:30Z

Exorrhiza wendlandiana

2009-10-01T12:47:16Z

Exorrhiza

2009-10-01T12:46:36Z

Exochorda macrantha

2009-10-01T12:46:09Z

Exochorda giraldii

2009-10-01T12:45:14Z

Silparaja:

{{Inc|
Exochorda Giraldii, Hesse (E. racemosa var. Giraldii, Rehd.). Similar to the preceding: Lvs. oval or elliptic, entire, very rarely crenate-serrate; petiole about 1 in. long, usually red: fls. very short-stalked or nearly sessile; petals obovate, gradually narrowed into the claw, sometimes toothed; stamens 25-30. N.W.China. M.D.G. 1909:295. G.W. 16, p. 450. Var. Wilsonii, Rehd. (E. racemosa var. Wilsonii, Rehd.). Lvs. elliptic to oblong, occasionally serrate petioles ½-¾ in. long, usually green: stamens 20-25. Cent. China.
}}
#REDIRECT [[Exochorda racemosa subsp. giraldii]]

Exochorda korolkowii

2009-10-01T12:45:12Z

Silparaja:

{{Inc|
Exochorda Korolkowii, Lav. (E. Alberta, Regel. E. grandiflora var. Albertii, Aschers. & Graebn.). Upright, slender- branched shrub, to 12 ft., glabrous: Lvs. oblong, to oblong-oblanceolate, obtuse or acute, gradually narrowed toward the base, entire, but the Lvs. of the stronger shoots often serrate above the middle and at the base with 1 or few small narrow lobes, 1½-2½ in. long: racemes 5-8-fld.; fls. 1½ in. across; petals narrowly obovate; stamens 25: caps. ¾ in. long, ovoid, pointed. April, May. Turkestan. G.W. 16, p. 451. G. 31:505.—This is one of the earliest shrubs to burst into leaf in spring; it is of more upright habit and with darker and denser foliage than the preceding, but not Bo floriferous.
}}
#REDIRECT [[Exochorda racemosa subsp. racemosa]]

Exochorda racemosa

2009-10-01T12:43:29Z

Exochorda

2009-10-01T12:43:02Z

Exhibitions

2009-10-01T12:41:49Z

__NOTOC__{{Plantbox
| latin_name = ''LATINNAME'' 
| common_names = 
| growth_habit = ? 
| high = ? 
| wide = 
| origin = ? 
| poisonous = 
| lifespan = 
| exposure = ? 
| water = ? 
| features = 
| hardiness = 
| bloom = 
| usda_zones = ? 
| sunset_zones = 
| color = IndianRed
| image = Upload.png 
| image_width = 240px 
| image_caption = 
| familia = 
| genus =
| species =
| subspecies = 
| cultivar = 
}}
{{Inc|

Exhibitions of horticultural products have been both a concomitant and a stimulant of progress in American horticulture. The great international expositions ushered in by the Centennial Celebration of 1876 at Philadelphia, through the opportunities afforded for the comparison of products, have been the means of unusual education in the identification of varieties. No amount of descriptive literature can compare with this method of acquiring accuracy in naming and describing fruits, flowers, and vegetables.

The interest in these great exhibitions by the growers of soil products indicates a peculiarity of this class of producers. They are the ones to reap the smallest direct result, and yet they have always been willing to give freely of their productions to swell the volume of these great fairs and emphasize the possibilties of the localities in which they lived. They would even pay their own expenses to attend these fairs and explain to the world how they succeeded in growing such attractive things. No producers of the useful things of life will compare with the horticulturist in willingness to impart to his fellow the secrets of his success. National, state, district and township exhibitions have thus become great methods of disseminating information of value to the horticulturist—educators of the people.

For many years the most prominent feature of fruit shows was the nomenclature of the exhibit. In vegetables it was the size of the specimen, in flowers the number of sorts and their tasteful arrangement. People flocked together to identify varieties, to see the big things and to satisfy esthetic longing. Later the art in exhibiting products was given more attention, and wonderful creations have resulted from combinations and artistic arrangement.

Exhibitions have been the favorite opportunities of bringing out new and valuable sorts and often the usefulness of a variety dates from some particular fair at which it was prominently displayed. Notable instances of this were the grapefruit, which was shown in quantity for the first time at the great New Orleans exhibition; the Kieffer pear, which was a distinguishing feature of a meeting of the American Pomological Society in Philadelphia; the Niagara grape, which was featured at a winter meeting of New York fruit-growers. Striking examples of this are found in the annals of floral exhibits. The dissemination of the most delightful strains of carnations and chrysanthemums dates from some particular fair or "show."

In recent years, the experiment stations of the country have added greatly to their usefulness in preparing technical exhibits for winter exhibitions of horticultural societies, helping their progressive work, through graphic illustrations of the results which they have obtained in growing products under varying conditions, and having in mind the demonstration of problems of value to growers.

One of the most recent developments has been the opportunity given students of agricultural colleges of putting into practice the knowledge of varieties which they have acquired in the naming of various collections as a competitive drill.

The products of glass farming have been brought into prominence through national, state, and local horticultural societies in their annual exhibitions, and the great seedhouses of the country have used these exhibitions as avenues for the dissemination of new and valuable varieties. Nurserymen have successfully utilized exhibitions in publishing to the world not only their new creations but their methods of propagation.

During recent years the initiative of the American Pomologies! Society has been followed by many other organizations in perfecting a scale of points for judging exhibits of horticultural products. By this means, more accurate methods have come into use at our great fairs, and, in the hands of experts, the judgments rendered have been far more satisfactory and useful.
A most important result of exhibitions has been the acquirement of the knowledge that varieties vary a great deal as the result of climatic conditions and differences in soil, and it is found as an outcome of these comparisons that certain localities are especially adapted to certain varieties in which they reach then- highest perfection. This is illustrated in the Rocky Ford cantaloupe, the Albemarle Pippin, certain strains of carnations, and head lettuce. The facts brought out through these comparative exhibits are leading to scientific investigations concerning the conditions which produce these variations which will be of great use to the producers, as well as deep interest to the scientist.

Commercial problems are finding their solution through exhibitions which illustrate styles of packing and kinds of packages and general attractiveness in presenting the products to the consumer. Already these exhibitions have brought to the attention of law-makers the importance of uniform legal requisitions concerning methods of marketing throughout the land.

The most recent development of values resulting from horticultural exhibits of great utility has been the carrying of the methods of comparison instituted there to the growing of products on the farm and in the garden, orchard and vineyard, thus awakening a deeper interest in the factors which affect the production of horticultural creations and a recognition of the uses of these creations in landscape art. Thus an abiding interest has been awakened in the development of the science as well as the art of horticulture through the adoption of new and improved methods of production and widening the usefulness of the products. Charles W. Garfield.

Exhibitions of plants and flowers.

Floral exhibitions undoubtedly had their origin, in part, in the desire to display publicly the products of one's skill and to attain renown and a position of pre-eminence among one's fellows by successful rivalry and the demonstration of superior cultural abilities. But, in addition to this factor of self-interest and excusable pride, the laudable spirit that seeks to promote a taste for ornamental gardening and floriculture in general, and to acquire knowledge and diffuse information concerning it, has from the first been a powerful incentive; and it cannot be questioned that public floral exhibitions have contributed most substantially to the advancement of refinement and good taste and exercised a potent and salutary influence on the domestic life, health, morals and happiness of the respective communities in which they have been held.

Exhibitions of plants and flowers, as usually conducted, may be broadly divided into two classes:

(1) Those whose particular purpose is to demonstrate advancement in cultural methods and exploit new and improved varieties and which are calculated to interest primarily the trade and professional gardeners. The unavoidably monotonous system of staging exhibits in such an affair is well known. To the general public, its salient points are scarcely apparent, and the elements which often appeal most strongly to the professional are all but lost on the average visitor. It has been demonstrated over and over again, that as an attraction for the people who look for entertainment in a show and are willing to pay for the privilege of seeing it, this sort of an array is fundamentally deficient.

(2) If public support is sought, the first requisite is that the public fancy be considered and catered to and the character and scope of the exhibition be such as the people care to take an interest in. A practical demonstration of the uses of flowers and plants and their appropriate arrangement for the various events of social or home life will invariably excite curiosity and interest when prim rows of dozens and fifties of competitive blooms will often fail to awaken appreciative response. It is to be regretted that the so-called retail florist trade has so long been neglectful of its duty and its opportunity as a supporter of and participator in the flower shows. Without the assistance and cooperation of the experienced decorator and artistic worker in flowers, these affairs must invariably fall short of their mission and their educational possibilities. How to overcome the indifference of this branch of commercial floriculture toward these enterprises which should bring immeasurable benefit to their industry is one of the serious problems for which those who believe in flower shows must find a solution before the ideal of what a horticultural exhibition should be can be realized.

The direct cost of installing a public flower show is no small matter and many a commendable enterprise has failed through lack of sufficient income properly to finance it. Bent of hall, music, advertising, premiums, tables, vases, management, labor and a host of incidentals must be taken carefully into consideration, and to launch any such project, under conditions now existing, without some form of endowment, subscription, guaranty or other definite and reliable resource, apart from the uncertain sale of admission tickets, is merely tempting fate and taking chances on misfortune.

The grouping of pot-plants for effect calls for talents of a high order. Arrangements of this kind, which are so indispensable in giving character to a flower show that will appeal to the artistic eye as effective studies in form and color, are indeed rarely seen. Two almost universal faults are excessive formality in contour of the group and overcrowding of material, and it not infrequently happens that when a studied effort has been made for irregularity of outline, the result is still unnatural and often almost grotesque. The promiscuous mixing together of incongruous subjects, as, for example, hardy conifers, tropical palms, geraniums and orchids in one group, is all too common. A tasteful grouping of plants of congenial character will always inspire enthusiastic admiration among cultured and discriminating visitors, and if the flower pots are hidden from sight by moss or other natural material, the pleasing effect will usually be further enhanced, particularly in the case of plants which might naturally grow together.

It is well known among flower-growers that the time of day, the condition of development, and other factors have a considerable influence on the keeping qualities of their product. A sojourn in a cool, dark room over night with stems deeply immersed in fresh water is really an essential with many flowers if they are to remain for any time in good condition in the atmosphere of an exhibition hall. Nothing is more disfiguring in a flower show than a lot of wilted blooms. Much depends upon the style of vases used. Vases spreading at the top and narrowing to a point at the bottom, while perhaps the most graceful in form, are very destructive to flowers, the small quantity of water available at the base of the stems soon becoming heated and impure. Constant changing of water, and keeping down the temperature of the hall will help to preserve the exhibits. Table baskets and dinner-table exhibits generally, as often arranged, scarcely last until the first visitors are admitted. Only those in which the flower-receptacles arc such as contain water can give any satisfaction in a flower show.

The background against which flowers are shown, as the color and material of the walls, covering of tables, and so on, has much to do with the general impression, favorable or otherwise, on the visitor. Green—the natural foliage green—is unquestionably the "middle of the road" background hue for flowers. Back of and beyond green, the neutral grays and browns, and sometimes pure white, are pleasing and satisfactory. It is worth noting that, while terra-cotta or flower-pot tones are usually beyond reproach as a background for living green, yet a brick wall is a disheartening condition for this purpose, showing that it is not alone color which decides the appropriateness of exhibition hall walls or drapery.

The number of specimens usually shown in cut-flower classes depends upon the kind of flowers, the ingenuity of the schedule-makers, and the demands of the occasion. The more extensive and pretentious the exhibition, the larger should be the classes. Roses and carnations in half-dozens, for example, have little value in a large exhibition. Fifties and hundreds alone will impress the visitors. When individual blooms, or groups composed of individual varieties are displayed, much depends upon the taste shown in color-arrangement. This is especially important with such subjects as chrysanthemums, dahlias, gladioli and sweet peas, all of which afford wide scope for demonstration of taste in exquisite blending, contrasting and gradation of color-tones, qualities which should count for much in the final decisions of the judges. The question of the height of tables or platforms on which flowers are shown is one which should be carefully considered in planning an exhibition. There are flowers which should be looked down upon if their full beauty is to be seen. Others must arch overhead to display their graces, and there are many intermediate steps. As a rule, exhibition tables are set too high.

One main reason for the flower show being its educational value, the proper and legible labeling of species and varieties is essential. In no other respect are our exhibitions so deficient. A neat label, attached so it can be read without handling, and legible at a fair distance, is something rarely seen at a flower show, while obtrusive advertising cards or award cards frequently spoil the beauty of an otherwise creditable staging.

Competitive exhibitions properly conducted and entered into with the right spirit are, as before said, calculated to accomplish much good for the art of horticulture. Emulation in .1 friendly contest for honors is a strong factor in the success of a show, but the kind of rivalry which stimulates jealousies, envenoms disappointment and incites to angry protests over judges' decisions, is one of the most mischievous elements that can intrude upon the scene. In order to discourage the protesting habit and minimize the demoralizing influence of questionable decisions, great care should be exercised always in the selection of competent, disinterested and impartial judges. Their names should be announced a sufficient time in advance so that every intending exhibitor may know who is to pass upon his exhibits.

It is now a generally established custom to inclose the name of an exhibitor in an envelope bearing only the class number, the identity of the exhibitor not to be disclosed until after the judging has been completed. Some very excellent systems of cards, record books{ envelopes, and so on for this purpose have been devised and are in general use. Wm. J. Stewart.

Exhibition of fruits. Fig. 1469.

The educational value of carefully planned exhibitions of fruits can scarcely be overestimated. That this fact is appreciated in increasing measure each year is demonstrated by the growing number of such exhibitions that are being held throughout the country. Commercial fruit regions do much of their advertising by means of these annual affairs, and there are few towns or hamlets, however unpretentious, without their yearly fruit show promoted by the grange, the school, the church, or some other organization whose aim is progress in country affairs.

Foresight, with careful attention to details, is essential if the possibilities of an exhibition are to be developed to the utmost. The larger number of such events are held in the fall, since fall is Nature's harvest season for fruits. This means that preparation must begin in midsummer to insure the greatest measure of success. There are many things that the grower can do at this time to secure high-class fruit for exhibition purposes, and no other should be considered.

The best fruit is often found near the top of the tree, if thorough spraying has been done. It is the best because conditions there are most nearly ideal for its development. As the fruit increases in size and the weight upon the branches becomes greater, the side branches settle more closely together, while the topmost branches and those most nearly upright in habit of growth, always advantageously situated, have an increased opportunity to receive the abundance of air and sunlight so essential to normal and perfect fruit. Fruit on such branches invariably possesses the highest color of any on the tree, and color is of vital importance for the matter in hand.
The color may be heightened and the size increased if the fruit is thinned until the specimens hang 6 inches or more apart. A branch may be headed back, and occasionally one may be removed entirely to the benefit of those remaining, if good judgment is used. This matter of thinning is of considerable importance in the securing of high-class exhibition fruit, whether the fruit be apple, orange, or grape.

The production of exhibition specimens by abnormal processes—as by ringing or girdling—is not allowable, unless for the express purpose of showing what can be accomplished by such practices: fruits produced by such means should not be shown in comparison or competition with specimens produced under recognized and standard methods.

The specimens should be allowed to remain attached to the parent plant as long as possible. The longer they remain thus, the more intense will be their color and the greater will be their size.

Pears especially increase very rapidly in size just before maturity. The picking should be done by hand and with the greatest care. Many an excellent specimen has been ruined by careless handling. The stems should remain intact. The picker should remove, not a sufficient number of specimens to meet the requirements under which the exhibit is held, but many times that number. A bushel, or even a barrel, of seemingly high- class fruit will often yield after the most rigid inspection but a single plate of perfect specimens.

The actual selection of the specimens to be exhibited is the most difficult and perplexing problem connected with this work. Fundamental to a successful solution of this problem is a thorough knowledge of the variety, an intimate acquaintance with the characters of a normal specimen, and a fine discrimination in the balancing of these characters and in the attaching of the proper values to each.

The external factors that must be considered are size, form, color, uniformity, and freedom from blemishes. The criteria to be used in the inspection of the first three factors are the attributes of a typical normal specimen of the variety when grown under conditions favorable to its development. The largest apple is not necessarily the best; in fact, great size is usually obtained at the expense of some equally desirable factor. The extra-large specimen is always an abnormal specimen and, as such, is not to be sought. It is in regard to this factor, however, that many exhibitors make their first mistake. A safe rule to follow is to choose the specimen combining large size with the highest color. This rule will almost invariably eliminate the abnormally large specimen.

The form of the specimen should be true to the prevailing type of the section in which it grows. Occasionally different sections produce different types, as, for example, the New York and the Oregon-grown Esopus. One is as true to type as the other, but the two types should never be mixed on the same plate or in the same package.
Of all external factors, none exceeds in importance the quality of color. High color always sets up in the mind the presumption of excellence; the higher the color, the more pronounced seems to be the presumption, though it is not always justified. Color is also an indication of fitness, of approaching maturity, but a specimen maturing far in advance of its companions should be regarded with suspicion lest it harbor a worm that may emerge at a most inopportune moment if it escapes detection. Polishing a specimen to enhance its color should not be practised. The operation removes the bloom, which is more beautiful than the high polish because it is natural.

The factor of uniformity implies that one specimen should resemble every other specimen as nearly as it is possible for the human eye and hand to make it. It is a literal application of the expression "as nearly alike as two peas." A single specimen of highest order should not be retained for a moment if its companions are on a more nearly equal though somewhat lower plane of excellence.

Freedom from blemishes implies that the specimen is perfectly sound. A blemish may be anything from a. bruise, a broken stem, or a stem puncture to a scale- mark or scab-spot. In an age when knowledge of preventive measures is so widespread and so accessible, evidence of injury from insect or disease should completely exclude a specimen from consideration. Needless to say, the condition of the specimen should be as sound as the season permits, showing neither flabbiness nor physiological disintegration of the tissues.

The factor of quality is also worthy of consideration, though it is of more importance in case of collections in which one variety is exhibited against another than in case of different specimens of the same variety. Granted that size, form, and color are normal, the factor of quality will usually take care of itself.

There is need of a standardization of requirements under which fruit exhibits are held. These requirements should be based on trueness to type and all that the term implies, and the values attached to the different characters concerned should be fixed in proportion to their relative importance for the purpose in hand. Such a statement appears in the following score-card for apples, which is in somewhat common use in the eastern United States:

Size…. 10
Form….. 10
Color….. 20
Uniformity…. 15
Quality….. 20
Freedom from blemishes….. 25
Total….. 100

This score-card may be no more nearly correct than many others, but it represents a concerted effort to fix a satisfactory standard. There should be more of this work for every fruit.
Score-cards for other fruits have been adopted by particular exhibitions and institutions as the following for grapes:

Form of bunch…. 10
Size of bunch….. 15
Size of berry…… 10
Color………. 10
Bloom……. 5
Freedom from blemish……. 20
Flavor…….. 25
Firmness…….. 5
Total………… 100

There is need also of a general agreement as to the number of specimens to be exhibited on a single plate. The rules now governing all large exhibitions in the East require that plates of apples, peaches, pears, and quinces shall contain five specimens; of the smaller fruits a sufficient number to fill a 6-inch plate; and of grapes three clusters.

Fruit to be sent away for exhibition should be carefully packed. A bushel box is a satisfactory package for this purpose, being better than a larger package in which the pressure on the fruit is greater. Each specimen should be wrapped, and the box should be well lined with excelsior or other material. Extra specimens should be included to replace those that are injured in any way.

In selecting the room in which the exhibition is to be held and m setting up the fruit, one prime factor should always be kept in mind—there should be nothing in the room to detract in any way attention from the fruit. To this end, the walls should be plain or even bare. The decorations should be few, simple, and in harmony with the colors of the fruit, that is, substantial and perfectly plain. Red and white make a very effective combination for ceiling decorations, if decorations seem desirable. Plain white is best for draping the tables. If electric lights are present, the shades may be covered with red crepe paper. This will give a quiet and subdued effect to the room when the lights are on and will be in keeping with the other decorations. The tables should be covered with a material that will throw the fruit into sharp relief without attracting attention to the covering itself. Oatmeal paper, gray-green in color, answers these specifications very well. Six- or eight-inch papyrus plates are better than smooth-pressed paper plates or the wooden plates and need no covering.

The fruit should be set up in such a way that a mass effect is produced, which impresses the observer with the fruit and with nothing else. This means that all the fruit must be on the same level. Shelves or tiers one above the other are not desirable. In other words, every detail should be subordinated to bringing out as sharply as possible the fruit that is on exhibition. It is therefore highly undersirable to place labels on the top of a specimen, as is so often done.

The observer notes first of all a vast and meaningless sea of tags and after that perhaps the fruit. The label may be pinned into the plate in such a way that it is unnoticeable except on close inspection, when it can be plainly seen. A satisfactory label is a plain white card with three lines on it, the first for the variety name, the second for the name of the exhibitor when permissible, and the third for the section from which the fruit comes. If the exhibit is to attain its highest educational value, the varieties must be correctly named and the names correctly spelled.

In general, it will be better to group varieties together in order that comparisons may be made between the different plates. By so doing an opportunity is afforded for a study of variations of fruits grown under different methods of management and in different sections in which climatic conditions are unlike. Occasionally grouping by sections may be desirable, especially if there are general and marked contrasts between the same varieties as grown in different sections.

The plates should not be crowded on the tables lest the eye become confused and the fruit appear to be a jumble of specimens lacking orderly arrangement. The background of paper covering the table should be visible between every plate, not in order that it may be seen, but because it will serve to set off each plate as a separate unit meriting for the moment undivided attention.
Finally, the specimens should be arranged in the same order on every plate and the plates should be in perfect alignment in every direction. Not only this, but when the angles formed by the specimens on a plate are right angles, as in case of apples with four specimens on the bottom and one on top at the center, the angles should assume the same direction as those of the table top.

The same rules hold for the selection of fruit for barrels, boxes, or other packages as for single plates. The arrangement should be such as to bring out the fruit and subordinate the package, exemplified in the bank of boxed fruit. C. S. Wilson.

Exhibition of vegetables.

The exhibition of vegetables is usually an important feature at county, district and state fairs, and often at farmers' institutes, horticultural society meetings and conventions of vegetable-growers. Vegetables are also likely to occupy a prominent place in county or state exhibits at state, national or international shows or expositions. The exhibits may be competitive or non-competitive. In the former case they are usually made by the individual producers; in the latter case, they are more often made by a company, development bureau, or an institution, primarily for advertising or educational purposes. In either case, they have some educational value, even the individual exhibitor learning by comparison of his exhibit with others.

Competitive exhibits are of two kinds: (1) those in which the exhibit consists of a specified quantity of a given kind of vegetable, e.g., one dozen table carrots, and (2) those which consist of a collection or display of vegetables alone, or combined with other products of the soil. Vegetables in exhibits that are designed primarily for advertising or educational purposes usually form only a part of some general exhibit.

In making exhibits in competition with the products of other exhibitors, the successful competitors are usually those who give most careful attention to the selection, preparation and installation of their exhibits.

In making single exhibits, care should be taken to show the exact quantity or number of specimens mentioned in the entry list. At county fairs, especially, exhibitors are prone to make their "pecks" or "half- pecks" exceedingly email if exhibition material is scarce or time limited. The present tendency is to specify in premium lists the number of specimens, whenever this is feasible, rather than a given bulk, and to disqualify exhibits which do not conform to the requirement in this respect.

In selecting specimens which are to form a single exhibit, very few inexperienced persons appreciate the importance of uniformity in size and type. Sometimes an exhibit will be very creditable with the exception of one or two specimens. These odd specimens may be very good as individuals, but differ much in size or type from the other specimens and detract seriously from the value of the exhibit.

Vegetables on exhibition should be clean. Root crops should usually be washed. Onions are best prepared by careful brushing. Cauliflower and cabbage should be carefully trimmed; tomatoes, eggplant and melons wiped with a moist cloth. Celery, lettuce and endive should be gathered with the roots on, carefully washed, and displayed with the roots immersed in water so that the plants will not wilt.

The arrangement of the specimens in a single exhibit is also important. When the judging is by comparison, only those exhibits which attract the immediate attention of the judge will be likely to receive careful consideration if the number of entries is at all large. Under such conditions it often happens that the arrangement of the specimens is fully as effective in securing careful examination of the exhibit as is the perfection of the specimens themselves. In the case of many kinds of vegetables, if the number of specimens is not over one dozen, the exhibit can often be displayed very advantageously on plates or trays. If one peck or one-half bushel is prescribed, splint baskets are desirable receptacles. In any case, the appearance of the exhibition room will be greatly enhanced if the receptacles used for all the single exhibits are as uniform as the nature of the products will permit. With this end in view, it is desirable that the management furnish the receptacles.

In the exhibitions held by thoroughly established organizations which give special attention to vegetables, there is likely to be a recognized appropriate method of disposing the specimens of each kind of vegetable in or upon a given type of receptacle. At county fairs, each exhibitor usually exercises his own ingenuity both as to type of receptacle and method of arrangement; and the result is at least lacking in monotony. To show at its best, every exhibit should be characterized by neatness and simplicity in arrangement.

The principles involved in making a general display including a number of different kinds of vegetables are much the same as for making individual exhibits: the specimens must be selected with care, thoroughly cleaned, and attractively arranged. In addition, the character and arrangement of the exhibit as a whole must be given careful attention. Very often, general displays fail in effectiveness because the number of specimens of each kind is too limited or the different specimens of the same kind are too much scattered through the exhibit, instead of being massed so that they would make an impression upon the spectator. Exhibitors are likewise inclined to weaken the character of an exhibit by introducing a few specimens each of numerous species or varieties that are little known or of small commercial importance. These are often scattered promiscuously through the exhibit and detract the attention from the main features. The general effect of the exhibit as a whole is of prime importance.

Non-competitive exhibits of vegetables for advertising or educational purposes are usually confined to a comparatively few species or varieties in a given exhibit. In exhibits made for advertising some particular section or locality, the vegetables are likely to be merely a minor part of a general exhibit, and to consist of specimens likely to attract attention by reason of their unusual size rather than any other noteworthy feature.

Certain kinds of vegetables lend themselves readily to the making of purely educational exhibits to illustrate the influence of differences in soil treatment or cultural methods or the results of treatment for plant diseases. In such exhibits, it is unwise to attempt to illustrate the results of many different treatments in one exhibit. It is much better to concentrate the attention of the spectator upon one or two striking results than to try to demonstrate a number of minor variations. If the latter method is attempted, the effectiveness of the display will be destroyed; for the passing observer recognizes only striking contrasts. For example, if a number of different fertilizer treatments have been employed, and all give marked results as compared with the check (the unfertilized plat), it would be unwise in an educational exhibit to attempt to illustrate the proportionate yields from all the treatments. Only the yields of the check plat and one or two others should be given. The casual observer can see three things at a glance, but not a dozen.

In making an educational exhibit to represent differences in yields, the quantities shown should represent yields from definite areas of ground, such as one- hundredth or one-thousandth of an acre; and the specimens should be arranged in such a way that the differences will be most apparent.

In arranging an exhibit to illustrate the results of treatment for plant diseases, e.g., treatment of seed potatoes for the control of scab, it is better to sort the specimens from each plat into "diseased" and "sound," and to display them in two contiguous piles, than to mix the diseased and sound promiscuously in the same pile.

The educational value of all exhibits, whether competitive or non-competitive, is greatly enhanced if careful attention is given to the proper labeling of the various parts or features of each exhibit. Conspicuous legends of a concise nature are of some benefit to even the casual observer, and are greatly appreciated by the few who are specially interested in the particular exhibit or the matter it is designed to illustrate. John W. Lloyd.

{{SCH}}
}}

==Cultivation==
{{edit-cult}}

===Propagation===
{{edit-prop}}

===Pests and diseases===
{{edit-pests}}

==Species==


==Gallery==
{{photo-sources}}

<gallery>
Image:Upload.png| photo 1
Image:Upload.png| photo 2
Image:Upload.png| photo 3
</gallery>

==References==
*[[Standard Cyclopedia of Horticulture]], by L. H. Bailey, MacMillan Co., 1963




==External links==
*{{wplink}}

{{stub}}
[[Category:Categorize]]

Excoecaria bicolor

2009-10-01T12:41:35Z

Silparaja:

{{Inc|
Excoecaria bicolor, Hassk. (Croton bicolor, Hort.), with the opposite lvs. red beneath is sometimes cult, for ornament in European greenhouses or outdoors in the tropics. E. Agallocha, Linn., Agallocha, Blinding Tree, River Poison, etc., with alternate lvs., is a well-known poisonous tree of the coasts of S. Asia. J. B. S. Norton.
}}
#REDIRECT [[Excoecaria cochinchinensis]]

Excoecaria

2009-10-01T12:36:05Z

Exacum forbesii

2009-10-01T12:32:09Z

Exacum macranthum

2009-10-01T12:31:58Z

Exacum zeylanicum

2009-10-01T12:31:26Z

Exacum affine

2009-10-01T12:31:07Z

Exacum

2009-10-01T12:30:39Z

Evonymus vegeta

2009-10-01T12:30:28Z

Evonymus radicans

2009-10-01T12:29:40Z

Evonymus japonica

2009-10-01T12:29:28Z

Evonymus patens

2009-10-01T12:28:49Z

Evonymus bungeana

2009-10-01T12:28:41Z

Evonymus yedoensis

2009-10-01T12:28:14Z

Evonymus hians

2009-10-01T12:27:36Z

Evonymus maackii

2009-10-01T12:27:26Z

Evonymus atropurpurea

2009-10-01T12:26:52Z

Evonymus sanguinea

2009-10-01T12:26:29Z

Evonymus latifolia

2009-10-01T12:26:02Z

Evonymus europaea

2009-10-01T12:25:34Z

Evonymus nana

2009-10-01T12:24:03Z

Evonymus verrucosa

2009-10-01T11:43:24Z

Evonymus alata

2009-10-01T11:43:08Z

Evonymus obovata

2009-10-01T11:41:47Z

Evonymus americana

2009-10-01T11:35:49Z

Evonymus

2009-10-01T11:35:20Z

Evolvulus

2009-10-01T11:32:50Z

Evodia daniellii

2009-10-01T11:32:11Z

Evodia henryi

2009-10-01T11:31:54Z

Evodia glauca

2009-10-01T11:30:30Z

Evodia

2009-10-01T11:30:28Z

Everlastings

2009-10-01T11:29:38Z

Evergreens

2009-10-01T11:23:27Z

Evaporating Fruit

2009-10-01T11:22:54Z

Euterpe montana

2009-10-01T11:20:22Z

Silparaja:

{{Inc|
Euterpe montana, R. Graham. St. 10 ft. high, swollen at the base, ringed: Lvs. 9 ft. long, elliptical-obovate: segms. lanceolate, entire, glabrous, alternate; petiole 2 ft. long, scaly beneath, unarmed; rachis plano-convex below, subtriangular toward the apex: spadices several on the trunk at one time, axillary, much branched; fls. numerous, white. Grenada. B.M. 3874.—Intro, into Botanic Garden at Edinburgh in 1815. Jared G. Smith. N. Taylor.
}}
#REDIRECT [[Prestoea acuminata var. montana]]

Euterpe oleracea

2009-10-01T11:15:59Z

Euterpe edulis

2009-10-01T11:15:55Z

Euterpe

2009-10-01T11:15:17Z

Eutaxia

2009-10-01T11:14:19Z

Eustrephus

2009-10-01T11:13:56Z